He didn't decide anything. He was forced by the backlash to change tact.

So you don't believe a sitting U.S. president has ever gone ahead with a military strike in the past without UN backing at the very least?

Not with nearly 80% of the US staunchly against it. He was saved by the bumbling cousin Secretary of State. Like Xmas vacation goes to Washington or something. Doesn't matter though, cost and damage to me is largely mitigated, I am ready to move on.

Our President is getting us into a quagmire in Syria. He's the worst president ever! Our President is avoiding getting us into a quagmire in Syria. He's the worst president ever!

That's pretty much been the theme of this entire thread. Checking back on the first page, it started with then-mainstream Conservative orthodoxy that President Obama was a pro-dictator hypocrite for not immediately throwing military support behind the Syrian rebels. Then, as soon as Obama started talking about military action, they suddenly became the dovest doves of all time.

I thought the thread really hit a high point with brettmcd's post:

Quote from: brettmcd on August 31, 2013, 06:24:45 PM

Nothing has changed, Obama says he still has the authority to do it without congressional approval. The only reason he is doing it is to shift blame. If congress approves and it goes badly (as it most certainly will) he can blame congress, if congress doesnt approve, he can blame congress for tying his hands, on the tiny change it somehow all goes right, he will take all the credit.

"Any action taken by President Obama, with or without congressional approval, will prove he is wrong. Even if he wins." It's the best, most illuminating thing brettmcd has ever written.

Now it looks like the Obama administration's aggressive posture has inspired a multinational deal to seize and destroy Syria's chemical weapons. Whether or not this will actually happen is anybody's guess -- I tend to be a pessimist about these sorts of things and have my doubts -- but just as brettmcd promised, Conservatives are getting out in front of the situation by decrying it as a failure. YellowKing actually called the idea of Syria voluntarily disarming all of its WMDs without a war "the worst case scenario" a few posts back. It would be hilarious...if it weren't so, you know, monstrous.

Oh, and speaking of which:

Quote from: YellowKing on September 10, 2013, 03:22:02 AM

Man, I've seen some defense of shitty Presidential decision-making but that takes the cake. This is a President whose foreign policy numbers are currently at an all-time low - lower even than that time he let an ambassador get killed and drug through the streets. That takes some effort.

I've spoken highly of YellowKing in the past. I always considered him an example of a principled Conservative who was willing to look past the tenets of his ideology to consider new sources of information. How times change.

This might be the most reprehensible thing I've seen posted in this forum.

Earlier this year, Congressman Darrell Issa claimed multiple times, often on national television, that he had sworn testimony from White House insiders proving that the Obama administration had orchestrated a multi-layered coverup of the Benghazi attack. Then Democrats released full transcripts of all the closed door testimony and it turned out he was a McCarthy-esque liar. You'd think a man would be drummed out of congress for that sort of seditious public slander, but even Darrell Issa never had the temerity to claim Barack Obama sat back and allowed the attack to happen.

Speaking as someone who vehemently disagrees with many of the Conservative posters here, let me tell you: this is below what any of them would post on their worst day. What the hell is wrong with you?

Yes, I will lose just TONS of sleep over it tonight. These are message boards where we shoot the shit about politics. If you're taking it that seriously, then you should probably go find a hobby or something. I consider these forums casual conversation, plain and simple. I will say off the cuff things, I will say things spoken from emotion. I won't apologize for it. This is talk in a bar over beer, not formal Congressional hearings.

If that's "the most reprehensible thing you've ever seen posted" you need to get out more. Give me a break, drama queen. Oh the humanity!!!

Quote

YellowKing actually called the idea of Syria voluntarily disarming all of its WMDs without a war "the worst case scenario" a few posts back. It would be hilarious...if it weren't so, you know, monstrous.

No I did not. I called an ineffective diplomatic solution after the US was made to appear weak and indecisive the worst case scenario. You're assuming that Syria will voluntarily disarm all of its WMDs, a trust I don't share since there's no history of them actually keeping their promises.

Quote

Speaking as someone who vehemently disagrees with many of the Conservative posters here, let me tell you: this is below what any of them would post on their worst day. What the hell is wrong with you?

Nothing's wrong with me. I'm a doting dad in a great marriage with a successful career and a happy life that likes to hang out with friends and discuss politics (in what I thought was) a friendly manner. What the hell is wrong with you?

That was on OO, and was tongue in cheek (I did edit to put a smiley so it wouldn't be misconstrued).

But our attacks were meant to take out some of his chemical weapon capability. Leaving them intact means they could fall into the wrong hands. Of course, that risk is always going to be there no matter which option we choose. However, I trust our cruise missiles more than I trust Assad's honesty.

P.S. I'm pretty much done with this debate and R&P - not because I'm "taking my ball and going home" but because some people take it way too seriously and I don't like to be a part of the tension. When I see sources of stress in my life, I work to reduce or eliminate them, and a voluntary message board I use for entertainment should not be a source of stress. I will, of course, continue to post on other topics that don't bring out the worst in people (including myself).

One last thing before I go, as I cannot let AA's overreaction slide. This administration took responsibility for the security lapses in the Benghazi incident. They took responsibility and Hillary even said "the buck stops with me." So don't act like I'm concocting some outrageous accusation out of thin air. While my wording may have been too accusatory for your tastes, it doesn't change the fact that this was not a blameless incident.

So, I had a bunch of stuff going on yesterday. Lots of stress, but I don't want to go into it.

The point is, I was off my game and posted a couple things that, after a night's sleep, came out differently than I'd intended. I hope everyone accepts that everyone has their bad days so we can just move on.

Fair enough. I reacted strongly because it seemed so far out of character for someone I've respected in the past. Anyone can have an off day, but the important thing is that you didn't double-down with bunch of half-hearted justifications and defiant martyrdom.

That was on OO, and was tongue in cheek (I did edit to put a smiley so it wouldn't be misconstrued).

But our attacks were meant to take out some of his chemical weapon capability. Leaving them intact means they could fall into the wrong hands. Of course, that risk is always going to be there no matter which option we choose. However, I trust our cruise missiles more than I trust Assad's honesty.

Sorry, it was late and I conflated my forums.

I thought the objective was to dissuade him from using the weapons again. Targeting those weapons was a means to that end. He has too many stockpiled, and our knowledge is too imperfect, for us to deny him the capability entirely. Taking out "some" of that capability might have even pushed him into a use-it-or-lose-it mentality.

It seems to me that the best of our bad options is to leave Assad in control of his weapons, but make the price of using them too high. It further seems that that's what we've managed to do, even if we got there by flailing around. Long range, we try to encourage an orderly transition (working with Russia, Iran, and dissident Syrian elements) that removes Assad from the picture without bringing down Syria's government.

I won't argue with that. There's no perfect option here, so if the best we can get is him not using them again then I guess we have to accept it. I just wish we didn't have to go through losing so much face on the international stage to get to that point.

I won't argue with that. There's no perfect option here, so if the best we can get is him not using them again then I guess we have to accept it. I just wish we didn't have to go through losing so much face on the international stage to get to that point.

And I can agree with that. Now let's see if they can manage this new policy that they blundered into with some grace.

Doubtful. Assad is taking the Vietnamese method of making negotiations as another battlefield and wants to dictate terms:

Quote

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad added to the tension by saying that he is willing to place his chemical arsenal under international control — but only if the United States stops threatening military action and arming rebel forces trying to unseat him.

Assad, in an interview with a Russian television station, said he is prepared to sign the international convention banning the weapons and would adhere to its “standard procedure” of handing over stockpile data a month later.

After looking at the photos of the recent execution by rebel forces, it makes me sick we're actually arming these savages. Seriously, just let all these psychotic evil fucks kill each other at this point and save us the trouble.

After looking at the photos of the recent execution by rebel forces, it makes me sick we're actually arming these savages. Seriously, just let all these psychotic evil fucks kill each other at this point and save us the trouble.

Not to sound cynical but isn't that part of the point of arming the rebels? To ensure that the killing of two bad choices keeps going on?

Logged

A Pew Research Center poll found nearly half of Americans hold the false belief that TARP was passed under President Obama, while only 34 percent know it originated under Bush."Oh yeah?" Bush replied. "50% of the people were wrong."

I'm fairly confident we would've lost just as much face had we gone any other route. If anything, this may be the start of a restorative process for the US in the realm of foreign diplomacy.

Really? Making a threat of if you cross this line (using chemical weapons) we will take action, and then we don't take action and really don't do anything at all is going to restore things? Highly doubtful, it will just make people laugh at anything we say we are going to do in the future.

I'm fairly confident we would've lost just as much face had we gone any other route. If anything, this may be the start of a restorative process for the US in the realm of foreign diplomacy.

Really? Making a threat of if you cross this line (using chemical weapons) we will take action, and then we don't take action and really don't do anything at all is going to restore things? Highly doubtful, it will just make people laugh at anything we say we are going to do in the future.

Some people are going to laugh no matter what we do, and there is no contenting them. You should be familiar with that. To think any of the other presidential hopefuls would have handled it any better is ludicrous.

I'm fairly confident we would've lost just as much face had we gone any other route. If anything, this may be the start of a restorative process for the US in the realm of foreign diplomacy.

Really? Making a threat of if you cross this line (using chemical weapons) we will take action, and then we don't take action and really don't do anything at all is going to restore things? Highly doubtful, it will just make people laugh at anything we say we are going to do in the future.

Some people are going to laugh no matter what we do, and there is no contenting them.

Nothing has changed, Obama says he still has the authority to do it without congressional approval. The only reason he is doing it is to shift blame. If congress approves and it goes badly (as it most certainly will) he can blame congress, if congress doesnt approve, he can blame congress for tying his hands, on the tiny change it somehow all goes right, he will take all the credit.

Quote from: brettmcd on September 14, 2013, 06:47:07 PM

Really? Making a threat of if you cross this line (using chemical weapons) we will take action, and then we don't take action and really don't do anything at all is going to restore things? Highly doubtful, it will just make people laugh at anything we say we are going to do in the future.

Quote from: brettmcd on September 14, 2013, 11:36:01 PM

My cat could have handled it better then it was handled by Obama, and she sleeps about 22 hours a day.

Damn I didn't think it could be possible to top other things you have posted, but that is the stupidest thing you have ever posted here. It is a tremendous achievement for someone with the history you have AA. You should be proud of yourself.

And you missed the correct decision of all of this in your amusing graph, which is the path I supported. Do nothing at all, both sides deserve each other and let evil side one and evil side 2 wipe each other out.

And you missed the correct decision of all of this in your amusing graph, which is the path I supported. Do nothing at all, both sides deserve each other and let evil side one and evil side 2 wipe each other out.

Under the current course of events, the U.S. is not going to get militarily involved in Syria -- which is what you claim to want. The civil war will continue -- which is what you claim to want. And President Obama's threat of military intervention has coerced the Syrian government to turn their WMDs over to the United Nations for destruction -- which is what any sane human being would want.

And you missed the correct decision of all of this in your amusing graph, which is the path I supported. Do nothing at all, both sides deserve each other and let evil side one and evil side 2 wipe each other out.

Under the current course of events, the U.S. is not going to get militarily involved in Syria -- which is what you claim to want. The civil war will continue -- which is what you claim to want. And President Obama's threat of military intervention has coerced the Syrian government to turn their WMDs over to the United Nations for destruction -- which is what any sane human being would want.

So can you remind us all why you're so outraged about this?

-Autistic Angel

He never should have made his 'don't cross this line' bullshit to begin with. That is the problem. Also that you think Obamas threat is what made all this happen is laughable. Syria was ignoring it and laughing at the US until Russia got involved.

He never should have made his 'don't cross this line' bullshit to begin with. That is the problem. Also that you think Obamas threat is what made all this happen is laughable. Syria was ignoring it and laughing at the US until Russia got involved.

When Secretary of State John Kerry was asked what could happen to dissuade the Obama administration from its intent to intervene in Syria, he responded that Syria could voluntarily turn over all of its chemical weapons for destruction. Now that's what's happening.

In interviews, President Obama has explained that this bargain was first pitched during a private diplomatic meeting he had with President Putin back in June, and has been in the works ever since. No one -- not Russia, not Syria -- has disputed this timeline.

(CNN) -- Russia and the United States, in their third day of talks in Switzerland, said Saturday they have reached a groundbreaking deal on a framework to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons.

Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stood side by side in Geneva as they set out a series of steps the Syrian government must follow.

Syria must submit a comprehensive list of its chemical weapons stockpile within one week, Kerry said, and international inspectors must be on the ground no later than November.

So, according to your conspiracy theory, the John Kerry's demand for Syria to disarm its chemical weapons just happened to come on the exact same day that Russia and Syria had been secretly planning to announce that very thing, but because the United States said it out loud first, the other countries felt they had to forfeit credit for the deal.

The best part is: if that were really true, it would mean the Obama administration was *accidentally* incredibly amazing at foreign policy...and you'd still be outraged about getting everything you said you wanted.

To be fair, a strike is not completely off the table (though I guess it never could be), if Syria doesn't comply.

Measuring compliance is likely going to be incredibly difficult unless Russia just says they're complying even if they're not.

It's all in Assad's hands. If he in fact did use chem weapons he needs to not do it again or else Obama will neutralize this huge threat to the American people. That said, the rebels know this and might stage another (?) attack and point the finger at Assad.

He never should have made his 'don't cross this line' bullshit to begin with. That is the problem. Also that you think Obamas threat is what made all this happen is laughable. Syria was ignoring it and laughing at the US until Russia got involved.

Russia never would have gotten involved if Obama wasn't threatening to bomb their ally.

I think Obama's "red line" comments were stupid and it certainly looks as if they backed into a solution - but a solution that requires no effort from us that removes chemical weapons from the region seems like a Good Thing to me.

He never should have made his 'don't cross this line' bullshit to begin with. That is the problem. Also that you think Obamas threat is what made all this happen is laughable. Syria was ignoring it and laughing at the US until Russia got involved.

Russia never would have gotten involved if Obama wasn't threatening to bomb their ally.

I think Obama's "red line" comments were stupid and it certainly looks as if they backed into a solution - but a solution that requires no effort from us that removes chemical weapons from the region seems like a Good Thing to me.

If you trust Putin and the Syrians. I sure as hell don't trust either of them.

He never should have made his 'don't cross this line' bullshit to begin with. That is the problem. Also that you think Obamas threat is what made all this happen is laughable. Syria was ignoring it and laughing at the US until Russia got involved.

Russia never would have gotten involved if Obama wasn't threatening to bomb their ally.

I think Obama's "red line" comments were stupid and it certainly looks as if they backed into a solution - but a solution that requires no effort from us that removes chemical weapons from the region seems like a Good Thing to me.

Lesson learned: Painting yourself into a corner can work out OK if you make your roll to find secret doors.

He never should have made his 'don't cross this line' bullshit to begin with. That is the problem. Also that you think Obamas threat is what made all this happen is laughable. Syria was ignoring it and laughing at the US until Russia got involved.

Russia never would have gotten involved if Obama wasn't threatening to bomb their ally.

I think Obama's "red line" comments were stupid and it certainly looks as if they backed into a solution - but a solution that requires no effort from us that removes chemical weapons from the region seems like a Good Thing to me.

Did the red line stopped comments Syria from using the chemical weapons for several months before they decided to test the red line by using it once and if the US reaction because of the red line comments now stop Syria from using it again? If so then the red line comments is useful.